Part III: Unhealthy Relationshipswith Spiritual Teachers

15 Fear in a Disciple-Mentor Relationship

Almost every classical text on the disciple-mentor relationship includes a section on the
hellish suffering that follows from what is usually translated as "a breach of guru-devotion." The
material derives mostly from Ashvaghosha's vivid description of the horrors, which in turn
summarizes some passages from the tantras. Although the point pertains specifically to
relationships with tantric masters, most Tibetan authors take it to have a shared meaning that
applies to relationships with sutra masters as well.

Studying this teaching causes many Westerners to inject a devastating element of fear into their
relationships with their spiritual teachers. Fear of hell easily leads to a cult mentality and may
open them to abuse from unscrupulous teachers. They become afraid to protest against improper
behavior or to leave their teachers upon fear of burning in hell. To avoid this type of unhealthy
relationship, they need to investigate the teaching carefully.

First, they need to know exactly which types of attitude and behavior the texts describe as
leading to hell. Otherwise, if the translation term
guru-devotion has already misled them, the dubious phrase "a breach of guru-devotion" may
have confused them even further. Then, they need to understand the Buddhist concept of hell.
Lastly, they need to appreciate the psychological implication of fear within a Western cultural
setting.

Disastrous self-destructive actions regarding a spiritual teacher fall into three categories:
(1) building a disciple-mentor relationship with a misleading teacher, (2) disbelieving the good
qualities that one's mentor actually has, and thinking with a distorted, antagonistic attitude
about them, and (3) relating distortedly to one's properly qualified mentor. Relating distortedly
means being in violation of the first root tantric vow: to avoid scorning or deriding one's tantric
master. It also includes violating either of the first two tantric vows outlined in
The Kalachakra Tantra: disturbing the mind of one's tantric master or transgressing an
instruction that he or she has given.

In the context of a breach of guru-devotion, both thinking with a distorted, antagonistic
attitude and relating distortedly refer to changes in disciples' manners of relating to their
qualified mentors after establishing healthy disciple-mentor relationships with them. The two do
not refer to disciples' thinking or acting hostilely toward spiritual mentors who are not their
mentors, nor to other peoples' thinking or acting hostilely towards the disciples' mentors –
although hostile thought or behavior directed by any person toward another is, of course,
destructive. Both the agent and the object of a breach of guru-devotion are specific.

Further, a misleading teacher is someone who is ruled by disturbing emotions, such as greed,
attachment, anger, or naivety; who pretends to have qualities that he or she lacks; or who hides
his or her actual shortcomings. Moreover, such a person has a weak sense of ethics, teaches only
for personal gain, or gives incorrect information and instruction. Naive spiritual seekers may
incorrectly consider some of the person's faults as assets or ascribe good qualities to the person
that he or she lacks. Consequently, they build distorted relationships that are based on deception
and lies.

Thinking with a distorted, antagonistic attitude is one of the ten fundamentally destructive
actions described in Buddhism and constitutes a violation of one of the bodhisattva vows. It means
to deny or repudiate what is true about someone or something, and entails planning to spread one's
prejudiced opinion to others. Here, it refers to disciples' denying or repudiating the good
qualities that their spiritual mentors actually have and planning to spread false information about
the persons. The destructive way of thinking goes far beyond merely disbelieving in the good
qualities that their mentors have.

Further, according to the Prasangika-Madhyamaka explanation, thinking with a distorted,
antagonistic attitude may also include interpolating something false. Here, the destructive
thinking would be for disciples to invent and project negative qualities onto their mentors that
the teachers objectively lack.

Moreover, according to Tsongkhapa's
Grand Exposition of the Graded Stages of the Path, the motivation behind thinking with a
distorted, antagonistic attitude needs to include five further disturbing emotions and attitudes:
(1) One needs to be stubbornly blind to the actual qualities of someone. (2) One needs to be
contentious, from having a perverse sense of enjoying being negative. (3) One needs to be convinced
of the distortion, based on incorrect consideration and analysis. (4) One needs to be mean,
unwilling to accept that others have good qualities. (5) One needs to be headstrong in wishing to
bring down the person, without the least bit of shame about it and without thinking it
improper.

Distorted, antagonistic thinking about one's spiritual mentor, then, does not include all
thought about his or her actual limitations or shortcomings. For disciples to think that their
mentors are not fully enlightened beings who can speak every language in the world falls outside
the sphere of this destructive way of thinking. So does thinking that the actual faults or mistakes
of their mentors are in fact conventional faults and mistakes. Similarly, the destructive action
does not include disciples' disagreeing with their traditional mentors' opinions that women lack
the spiritual ability of men. Nor does it include deciding to keep a respectful distance from
abusive spiritual mentors.

On the other hand, consider the case of disciples who dwell on their mentors' actual faults or
mistakes and, with antagonistic attitudes, wish to publicize them. The way of thinking does not
repudiate actual good qualities or invent fictitious negative ones. Thus, the mental act does not
constitute distorted, antagonistic thinking. However, if any of the five disturbing emotions and
attitudes that Tsongkhapa described accompany the thought, the act is negative and creates
suffering.

For disciples to scorn or deride their mentors means for them to reject their previous
respectful and appreciative attitudes toward their teachers and to show them contempt. The
self-destructive action may include faulting or ridiculing the mentors, intentionally being
disrespectful or impolite, or thinking or saying that their teachings were useless. In
An Illuminating Lamp, Chandrakirti gave the example of a disciple who gained an
intellectual understanding of voidness from receiving instruction from his mentor and from
carefully thinking over it. Throughout the process, the disciple had conviction in the mentor's
qualifications and appreciation for his kindness in teaching the topic. The disciple then came to
despise the teacher and to think that the teachings were nothing special. So long as the disciple
held these negative attitudes, he had no chance of gaining a deep understanding of voidness in
meditation. In
Refined Gold, the Third Dalai Lama pointed out that disparaging one's mentor usually comes
from dwelling on the teacher's faults, whether real or imagined.

For disciples to disturb the minds of their mentors means for them to insult their teachers by
acting or speaking destructively, because of disturbing emotions or attitudes, and not even
thinking of refraining from doing so at any point during the act. Destructive actions include
taking a life, physically causing harm, robbing, or acting sexually inappropriately. Destructive
speech includes lying, speaking divisively, speaking harshly or abusively, and interrupting with
idle chatter. Whether the disciples direct the destructive actions at their mentors or at other
beings, the action would insult and displease their mentors.

For disciples to transgress instructions that their mentors have given means for them to commit
in a hidden fashion any of the ten destructive actions or to violate any of their vows, after
receiving specific instruction to avoid such behavior. The ten destructive actions include the
physical and verbal acts just mentioned and to think covetously, with malice, or with a distorted,
antagonistic attitude. The motivation needs to be a disturbing emotion or attitude. Moreover, the
disciples need to recognize that destructive behavior displeases their mentors and to think nothing
of engaging in it anyway.

Unlike the case of disturbing the mentor's mind, here the teacher need not necessarily learn of
the misconduct or show displeasure. Transgressing an instruction, then, does not include disciples'
politely refusing to act destructively or to transgress their vows if their mentors insist. Nor
does it include respectfully excusing themselves from doing something beyond their capacities or
means.

The self-destructive thoughts and actions regarding one's mentor, then, are totally specific and
require an extremely negative mind to commit them in the full sense. Moreover, distortedly and
antagonistically thinking about one's mentor, disparaging the person, disturbing his or her mind,
or transgressing an instruction that he or she has given requires four additional binding factors
before totally disastrous results may follow: (1) The disciples need to regard the negative actions
as free of detriment, see only advantages to them, and undertake the actions with no regrets. (2)
Having been in the negative habit before, they need to lack any intention to refrain now or in the
future from repeating the acts. (3) They need to delight in the negative actions and undertake them
with a perverse sense of joy. (4) They need to lack any sense of self-honor or concern about
disgracing their families or teachers, and need to lack any intention to repair the self-damage
they are causing.

Further, even if disciples have acted in any of the self-defeating ways regarding their mentors
- whether with all four factors present or only a few – Ashvaghosha clearly indicated how to avoid
experiencing the disastrous consequences. The disciples need to admit to their mentors their
destructive conduct or thought, acknowledge it as a mistake, and apologize. In apologizing, they
need to feel regret, not guilt, about the negative action, promise to try to avoid repeating it,
and reaffirm their safe direction in life and bodhichitta motivation. To strengthen the positive
potential arising from the relationship and to confirm the close bond, they need also to make small
offerings to their mentors as tokens of appreciation and respect. Even if their mentors have
already passed away, disciples may follow the procedure before pictures of their teachers or while
imagining them as present. Western disciples, however, need special care to avoid misconceiving
that making offerings to their mentors is a way to buy dispensation from their sins.

The connotation of the Sanskrit word for a hell,
naraka, is a joyless state. The Tibetan equivalent,
nyelwa (dmyal-ba), connotes a state that is difficult to get out of. The Buddhist concept of a
hell, then, is a tortured, tormented mental state, with a physical counterpart, that lacks any joy
and in which one feels trapped and unable to escape. Although the classical texts contain vivid
descriptions, the important point is the mental state and accompanying physical feeling they
describe.

Following a misleading teacher can bring the disasters of unsound practice or spiritual abuse
that can ruin enthusiasm for the spiritual path. It can turn open-minded seekers into bitter
cynics, completely closed to further steps toward liberation and enlightenment. The joyless,
disillusioned mental state of such people is difficult to break. It is a living hell. We may
understand this point by considering the analogy of being hurt in an unhealthy relationship with a
seemingly upright partner or friend who has betrayed our trust. We may be so devastated from the
disastrous experience that we close up emotionally and are afraid of entering another relationship.
We may even repudiate the value of any relationships at all.

Similarly tortured are disciples who first have conviction in their mentors' actual qualities
and appreciation for the actual kindness the mentors have shown, but then for some disturbing
reason, have changes of heart. When this happens, they become obsessed with denying their mentors'
qualities and kindness, with projecting invented faults, or with dwelling morbidly on the actual
faults the mentors have. They may feel contempt for their mentors and act destructively or violate
their vows out of spite, hoping that doing so will displease or hurt their teachers.

A similar phenomenon may happen with our true friends or loving, kind partners. A change of
heart may come from deep psychological factors such as low self-esteem and paranoia. Feeling
unworthy of receiving kindness or love, we may deny the attention and affection that we have
actually received. Afraid of abandonment, we may reject the partners first, to avoid the pain of
later being rejected. We may even try to hurt our partners or to force the abandonment by acting
terribly with them or by having an affair. A change of heart may also come from the influence of
misleading friends.

Such a mental state is clearly tormented and tortured. It creates a personal hell that lacks any
joy and is difficult to escape. It may even weaken the immune system and bring on or aggravate a
sickness. According to the Buddhist explanation of karma, most negative actions bring their results
in future lives. Nevertheless, when a person directs an extremely destructive action at someone who
has outstandingly good qualities and who has been especially kind, the results may ripen within
this lifetime. The hellish consequences of thinking or acting distortedly and antagonistically
toward our mentors, then, frequently occur shortly after the act.

Because many Western spiritual seekers lack clarity about which thoughts and actions regarding
their mentors bring hellish results, they fear thinking or doing something that in fact does not
lead to disaster at all. For example, they may fear accurately seeing as mistakes actual faults in
their mentors, such as misjudgment, abusive conduct, or involvement in spiritual power politics.
Their mentors' every action, they may think, must be perfect, because the mentors are fully
enlightened Buddhas.

Misunderstanding the concept of guru-devotion and of seeing that the mentor is a Buddha may
brainwash disciples into feeling that they must deny the truth. The conflict inevitably leads to
anxiety and tension. They may fear criticism from fellow Dharma students if they bring up something
about the teachers at their centers that disturbs them or does not seem right. They hold themselves
back from speaking about the mistakes they see, for fear of being branded bad disciples and
heretics who will burn in hell.

Further, some disciples may feel guilty for doubting even for a moment that their mentors are
literally enlightened beings. Typically, Western seekers feel that to question their mentors'
omniscience indicates that something is wrong with them. Thus, fear of punishment feeds a Western
sense of inherent guilt and inadequacy, and low self-esteem. Moreover, a feeling of helplessness
compounds the fear because, in Biblical thought, hell is eternal, with no way out.

According to the Buddhist teachings, only specific, extremely negative thoughts and actions
toward a mentor result in a hellish state of mind; and, regardless of how terrible, no hellish
state lasts forever. Through regret, open admission of their mistakes, and so forth, disciples may
avoid or recover from tortured spiritual devastation. Nevertheless, many Western disciples question
the benefit of contemplating the hellish consequences of distortedly relating to a mentor, which
sutra-level guru-meditation standardly includes as one of its preliminary steps.

As explained earlier, Western ethics derives from a belief in divinely or legislatively
promulgated laws. Obedience of the law defines someone as a good person or citizen, worthy of
reward, while disobedience makes the person bad and deserving of punishment. Therefore, many
Western spiritual seekers unconsciously see the discussion of hells as describing punishment for
disobeying the rules of unquestioning guru-devotion.

Buddhist ethics, on the other hand, does not involve obedience or moral judgment. People cause
themselves suffering by acting destructively, motivated by greed, attachment, anger, or naivety. If
they become aware of the effects of negative behavior and wish to avoid experiencing suffering,
they need to try to refrain from acting in these ways. Thus, the description of hells in Buddhist
texts is not intended to make people feel guilty or to scare people with low self-esteem into
obedience. The description is intended to educate people about the consequences of self-destructive
behavior.

Consider the case of traditional Tibetans. Because most do not typically suffer from low
self-esteem, learning about hellish suffering does not cause them to feel guilty or terrified of
disobeying sacred laws. However, the knowledge may help Tibetans to lessen their arrogant,
unbridled behavior. Westerners may learn from this example.

Modern Western spiritual seekers often reject the idea of divine punishment, yet many may still
be subject to guilt and low self-esteem. If they do not cower in fear of a breach of guru-devotion,
they may compensate for low self-opinion by acting with unbridled arrogance. For example, as part
of an unconscious process of transference and degenerative regression, they may impudently accuse a
teacher of backward thinking when he or she teaches them something that they do not find pleasing,
such as about hellish suffering. Like children feeling superior to their parents, they may
haughtily feel that Western scientific beliefs are better than primitive Tibetan superstition that
merely adds fuel to feelings of guilt and low self-esteem.

If we think like this, we might do better to look at the psychological truth of the hellish
states of mind that distortions of the disciple-mentor relationship create. If we wish to avoid
these tortured states, we need to gain a correct understanding of the teachings concerning a
healthy relationship with a spiritual mentor.

Nowadays, much confusion reigns over Dharma-protectors and tulku candidates. One great master
supports one opinion and another asserts the opposite. Many of the problems that Western disciples
face in light of the controversies arise from their lack of clarity about the teachings and from
the unhealthy relationships with their spiritual mentors that have developed from this unclarity.
For example, many disciples feel that they must loyally support their teachers' opinions because
they are afraid that if they do not, they will be committing a breach of guru devotion. They will
no longer be seeing that their mentors are Buddhas and will therefore burn in hell.

It is necessary to remember, however, that we need to maintain discriminating awareness and
common sense throughout our relationships with spiritual mentors. Moreover, disagreeing with our
mentors over certain points does not mean a lack of belief in the mentors' basic good qualities.
Nor does it mean that we have rejected the teaching that a mentor is both an ordinary human and a
Buddha from different valid points of view. Concerning certain disputed issues, however, we must
reach a conclusion ourselves. The question, of course, is how to decide.

In cases concerning meditation experience, more than one point of view may be correct. For
example, Kaydrubjey, Gyaltsabjey, and Kaydrub Norzang-gyatso, three Gelug masters of equal
eminence, differed in their Kalachakra commentaries concerning how many subtle energy-drops one
needs to stack in the central energy-channel to attain the path of seeing – the stage at which one
gains nonconceptual realization of voidness. Each description is valid, based on the experience of
an accomplished practitioner. Disciples can decide which description is valid for them based only
on personal meditation experience. Certainly not every disciple of each of the three masters had
the same meditation experience as his or her teacher had.

In other cases, one side of a disagreement may be objectively wrong, regardless of point of view
or personal meditation experience. Disciples can reach this conclusion, however, only on the basis
of deepening their studies and their skills in logic. Nevertheless, whether or not it is valid to
assert that a controversial protector is a Buddha or that a specific candidate is the incarnation
of a certain lama, there is no need to disparage either side.

Valid meditation experience and logic may decide certain issues, such as whether a Chittamatra
view of voidness can eliminate all obstacles preventing liberation and enlightenment. They are
inadequate, however, to decide extremely obscure issues, such as karma and rebirth. In such cases,
Dharmakirti recommended in
A Commentary on [Dignaga's "Compendium of] Validly Cognizing Minds," one needs to rely on
valid sources of information. Experience and logic can validate what Buddha explained about obvious
and obscure phenomena, such as concentration and voidness. Moreover, since Buddha's sole motivation
for teaching was compassion for others to avoid suffering and since this motivation was
sufficiently sincere and strong to enable him to overcome even the instincts of confusion,
Dharmakirti argued that one can be confident that Buddha is a valid source of information.
Therefore, what Buddha explained about extremely obscure phenomena is also valid.

If disciples rely solely on valid sources of information, however, to settle controversial
issues, they can find passages from the Buddhist scriptures and from the collected works of the
great masters to justify almost anything. Moreover, if disciples have received empowerments from
tantric masters on both sides of an issue and have been regarding both literally as omniscient
Buddhas and therefore both as valid sources of information, they still cannot decide which one is
correct.

In
A Lamp for the Definitive Meaning, Kongtrul stated that if tantric masters have the
transmission of their lineage, they require no further examination. Seekers can trust their
validity as qualified mentors, because to hold the transmission of a lineage means to realize and
embody its authentic teachings. In some cases, however, the lamas on both sides of a controversy
may equally be lineage holders. Using Kongtrul's criterion is still insufficient.

Buddha taught four guidelines regarding what to rely on: (1) Do not rely on a teacher's fame or
reputation, but on what he or she has to say. (2) Do not rely on the eloquence of his or her words,
but on their meaning. (3) Do not rely on words of interpretable meaning intended to lead deeper,
but on those of definitive meaning to which they lead. (4) To fathom the definitive meaning, do not
rely on ordinary levels of mind, which make things appear differently from the way they exist, but
on deep awareness, which does not fabricate discordant appearances.

This does not mean to rely on deep awareness of what is ultimately true to ascertain the
accuracy of a statement concerning what is conventionally true. A mind that validly cognizes the
deepest truth about something can only ascertain the validity of how a conventional phenomenon
exists. One needs to use a mind that validly cognizes the conventional truth about something to
ascertain the validity of what something conventionally is.

The ultimate deepest truth about something is how it exists in terms of either voidness or the
clear light mind. All phenomena exist as appearances of the clear light mind within the context of
voidness. Thus, if one explains from the resultant point of view of a Buddha, then not only a
specific protector or a specific tulku candidate is an emanation of an enlightened clear light
mind, but all beings exist in that way. Therefore arguing from an ultimate or deepest point of view
does not decide the question concerning the conventional identity of a protector or a
candidate.

Dharmakirti gave another criterion to consider, which may be more helpful for resolving the
dilemmas that many disciples face over disputed issues and thus more effective for dispelling fears
over possible breaches of guru-devotion. If Buddha repeatedly stated a point throughout his
teachings, then all disciples need to take it seriously as Buddha's true intention. On the other
hand, if a point appears only in obscure texts, it either needs interpretation or is just for
special persons and not for the general public.

Throughout his teachings, Buddha advocated that spiritual seekers rely on safe direction from
the Triple Gem and on the constructive karma they accumulate for protecting themselves from
suffering. Almost no where did Buddha recommend seekers to entrust their lives to Dharma-protectors
or even to rely on them. Therefore, in situations in which one cannot decide an issue such as
whether a specific protector is an enlightened being, the best solution is to maintain a distance
and to have no opinion. The issue of Dharma-protectors is not crucial to anyone's practice for
attaining enlightenment. Most important is to stick to the main teachings of Buddha on safe
direction and karma.

The same advice pertains to accepting one or another candidate as the reincarnation of a great
teacher. Buddha spoke repeatedly about the necessity that a spiritual mentor has learning,
realization, and a kind heart. He hardly ever mentioned the need for a title or property.
Controversy over tulku candidates has repeatedly occurred throughout Tibetan history, for example
with the Sixth Dalai Lama and the incarnation of the Drugpa Kagyu master Pema-karpo. No way exists
to decide the issue rationally. It is best to show great respect to both candidates, to maintain
equanimity about their identities, and to let the lamas sort out questions concerning hierarchy and
monastic property. A disciple's only appropriate concern is to receive teachings from these
candidates, if the candidates become properly qualified. The title and property that each nominee
holds do not affect the quality of his or her teachings.

Buddha did not create the laws of karma, nor did he forbid anyone to act destructively. In
teaching about karma and ethical discipline, he merely stated which actions bring about detrimental
results to oneself and, either directly or indirectly, bring harm to others. Each individual needs
to use his or her discriminating awareness to decide how to act. Within this context, Buddha
differentiated between actions that are naturally destructive, such as killing, and those
recommended for certain groups to avoid, for a specific purpose. An example of the latter is
monastics eating after noon, because it affects the clarity of their minds for meditating in the
evenings and mornings.

Let us examine two additional examples of actions that are not naturally destructive, but which
Buddha recommended for certain groups to avoid, for specific purposes. The actions are treating
nuns and monks as equals, in the case of the Buddhist monastic community, and engaging in
homosexual acts, in the case of Buddhist practitioners with vows to refrain from inappropriate
sexual behavior. When traditional mentors uphold Buddha's teachings that engaging in these actions
causes problems for members of these groups, Western disciples often find it difficult to accept.
Yet, they are perplexed about what to do. They fear that disagreeing with their teachers and
insisting on the equality of women or of homosexuals constitute a breach of guru-devotion. To
resolve the conflict, they need to understand the purpose behind Buddha's advice.

When Buddha established his monastic community, he hesitated at first to admit nuns. Because he
felt strong compassion for all beings, he was concerned that society not disparage and reject the
methods he taught for eliminating suffering. Indian society at his time would suspect improper
sexual behavior if his monastic community consisted of monks and nuns mixing freely together and
receiving equal treatment. Moreover, many of the monks lacked the maturity to deal with women in a
nonsexist manner. Therefore, to avoid disrespect and trouble to his community and subsequent
discredit of his teachings, he established the community of nuns as a separate entity, with a
position inferior to that of the monks. In addition, he formulated additional vows for the nuns, to
ensure that monastic conduct would be beyond suspicion. The community has followed these procedures
ever since.

Similarly, under Kushan rule in third century Kashmir, Indian society encountered Iranian
culture. The customs of the Iranians at that time differed greatly from those of India, especially
concerning widely accepted sexual behavior. Following Buddha's guideline that respect for his
community led to respect for his teachings, Vasubandhu expanded the traditional list of
inappropriate forms of sexual behavior. He included for Buddhist laypeople sexual practices that
Indian society at the time associated with foreign, "uncivilized" customs, such as incest and
homosexuality.

The extent to which general Indian society and specifically Indian Buddhists engaged in these
sexual practices prior to contact with Iranian culture is not the point. The point is that, in
recommending against them, Vasubandhu was concerned with enhancing the respectability of the
Buddhist community and teachings. Maintaining Buddhist ethics, after all, meant avoiding actions
that caused problems; and condoning or following sexual customs associated with people whom society
considered uncultured would surely lead to controversy and trouble. Since both Chinese and Tibetan
Buddhism base their practice of ethical self-discipline on Vasubandhu's texts, their lineages still
include homosexuality in their lists of inappropriate sexual behavior.

Buddha specified that, in the future, his community could change minor rules of discipline
concerning actions recommended for certain groups to avoid for specific reasons. To change them,
however, a council of monastic elders needs to convene, thoroughly research the issue, and reach a
consensus. Modern Western society looks down upon discrimination against women and homosexuals. If
Buddhist customs condone such prejudice, society may disparage the Buddhist community and discredit
Buddha's teachings. Therefore, to maintain Buddha's guideline for avoiding controversy and trouble,
a council of elders may need to reconsider these issues. His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama,
for example, has supported convening such a council, although he has admitted that gaining a
consensus would not be easy.

Before resolution of these issues, most Buddhist masters who are responsible for maintaining the
purity of their lineage have felt that they need to uphold the traditional teachings. They would be
irresponsible to their position and duties if they were to do any less. Disagreeing with such a
master when he or she is one of our spiritual mentors, however, does not constitute a breach of
guru-devotion. A breach occurs only when disagreement boils over into distorted, antagonistic
thoughts that the mentor is an intolerant reactionary.

Western followers and disciples who are confused or impatient about such issues need to
understand that Buddhism is not an authoritarian religion. No single person has the authority to
modify the teachings – not a head of a lineage or any other spiritual mentor. Therefore, it is
inappropriate to seek the approval of a traditional Tibetan lama for one's actions as a woman or
for one's sexual preferences. Each person needs to try to understand the principles underlying
Buddhist ethics and use his or her discriminating awareness to decide how best to avoid problems
and trouble.